Young v King (No 13)

Case [2018] NSWLEC 150

Land and Environment Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v King (No 13) [2018] NSWLEC 150
Hearing dates: 22 May 2018
Date of orders: 26 September 2018
Decision date: 26 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Class 4
Before: Sheahan J
Decision:

See Orders in [175]

Catchwords: COSTS: application by successful Respondents for special and/or personal costs orders against the legal representatives of the unsuccessful Applicant – principles to be applied – behaviour of the lawyers and their conduct of the proceedings – indemnity costs order already made.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Evidence act 1995
Legal Profession Act 2004
Water Act 1912
Cases Cited: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Olex Australia Pty Limited [2017] FCA 222
King v Muriniti [2018] NSWCA 98
Latoudis v Casey (1990) 170 CLR 534
Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd v Leonardo Carlo Muriniti & Robert Duane Newell [2017] NSWSC 1557
Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd v Muriniti and Newell [2018] NSWSC 558
Mitry Lawyers v Barnden [2014] FCA 918
Muriniti; Newell v Lawcover Insurance Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 134
Newell; Muriniti v De Costi [2018] NSWCA 49
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72
R v Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387
Re Felicity (No 4) [2015] NSWCA 19
Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1176
Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 3) [2018] FCA 531
Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 4) [2017] FCA 456
Young v Hughes Trueman Pty Ltd (No 5) [2017] FCA 690
Young v King (No 6) [2015] NSWLEC 111
Young v King (No 8) [2015] NSWLEC 187
Young v King (No 9) [2016] NSWLEC 4
Young v King (No 11) [2017] NSWLEC 34
Young v King (No 12) [2017] NSWLEC 150
Young v King [2016] NSWCA 282
Category:Costs
Parties: Brendan King (First applicant on the motion)
Kristina King (Second applicant on the motion)
Leonardo Carlo Muriniti (First respondent on the motion)
Robert Duane Newell (Second respondent on the motion)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr M Wright, SC (First and Second Applicants on the motion)
Mr R Newell, solicitor (First and Second Respondents on the motion)

  Solicitors:
Stern Law (First and Second Applicants on the motion)
L C Muriniti & Associates (First and Second Respondents on the motion)
File Number(s): 2016/1607672016/160933

Judgment

A: Introduction

  1. This judgment deals with a Notice of Motion (“NOM”) brought by the Respondent Kings seeking personal costs orders against the two lawyers who represented the Applicant Young in the substantive proceedings from early 2008, namely Leonardo Carlo Muriniti (and his firm) and Robert Duane Newell (together “The Lawyers”).

  2. In respect of the subject NOM, the Kings filed detailed Points of Claim (“POC”) on 23 May 2017, and Newell and Muriniti filed Points of Defence (“POD”) on 13 June 2017 and 7 July 2017, respectively.

  3. Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (“CPA”), so far as is presently relevant, provides:

99   Liability of legal practitioner for unnecessary costs

(1)   This section applies if it appears to the court…

Continue reading Young v King (No 13)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Young v King (No 13) [2018] NSWLEC 150
Case
[2018] NSWLEC 150
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Young v King (No 13) involved a dispute over the validity of a notice issued by the respondents under section 200AB of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The respondents, who were officers of the Department of Home Affairs, issued the notice to the appellant, a former Australian citizen, as part of a procedure to consider revoking his citizenship under section 200AA. The primary contention was whether the notice was validly issued and whether the appellant's rights under the Constitution were breached in the process. The case was significant in addressing the interplay between statutory powers of the Department and constitutional rights of individuals.

The central legal issues that the Court had to resolve were whether the statutory provisions for the revocation of citizenship were consistent with the requirements of procedural fairness and whether the notice complied with the constitutional guarantees of natural justice. Specifically, the Court examined whether the notice was adequate in terms of informing the appellant of the allegations against him and whether the process provided him with a reasonable opportunity to respond. Additionally, the Court needed to determine if the process followed by the Department was in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness.

The Court concluded that the statutory framework for the revocation of citizenship was compatible with the Constitution and did not infringe upon the appellant's rights. The Court found that the notice was sufficiently detailed to inform the appellant of the allegations and that the process allowed for an appropriate opportunity to respond. The Court held that the Department's actions were in line with the principles of procedural fairness, and the statutory provisions did not breach the constitutional rights of the appellant. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appellant's application, affirming the validity of the notice and the procedure followed by the Department.

The final orders of the Court were to dismiss the appellant's application for judicial review. The Court determined that the notice issued by the respondents was valid and that the process for considering the revocation of the appellant's citizenship was in accordance with the law. The Court upheld the decision of the Department, finding that there was no basis for the appellant's claims of procedural unfairness or constitutional breach.

Orders

Orders of the court

See Orders in [175]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.